home | news l

Saying sorry is a necessary step to reconciliation

By Max Atkinson

19 November 2007 - On the eve of the election campaign Prime Minister John Howard made a dramatic confession, with a promise of amends. He had, over many years, been wrong to ignore the role of symbolic gestures in enhancing reconciliation with indigenous Australians, and would now introduce constitutional changes to celebrate their status as first citizens. But he also reaffirmed party policy denying an apology for the "stolen children", and this remains a troubling issue.

Because Aboriginal leaders still see an apology as a symbol of reconciliation, and because state parliaments, governments and churches have had no difficulty in saying sorry, one must ask if further self-reflection in the same spirit might have led the Prime Minister to a change of heart.

The reasoning behind the refusal was explained by then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Senator John Herron, in 1998, a year when the first national "Sorry Day" saw some of the biggest marches in Australia's history:

"Such an apology could imply that present generations are in some way responsible and accountable for the actions of earlier generations, actions that were sanctioned by the laws of the time, and that were believed to be in the best interests of the children concerned."

There are two claims here; first that an apology unfairly blames present Australians for the sins of their forefathers; secondly, it unfairly blames the latter for actions which were well intended, but arguably reflected racial and/or other prejudice, such as to inhibit a sense of compassion for the victims.

Although widely repeated, these claims are rarely defended, despite serious flaws. The artificial nature of the first claim was addressed in 1996 by former High Court Judge and Governor-General, Sir William Deane:

"True reconciliation ... is not achievable in the absence of acknowledgment by the nation of the wrongfulness of the past dispossession, oppression and degradation of the Aboriginal peoples. That is not to say that individual Australians who had no part in what was done in the past should feel or acknowledge personal guilt. It is simply to assert our identity as a nation and the basic fact that national shame, as well as national pride, can and should exist in relation to past acts and omissions, at least when done or made in the name of the community or with the authority of government."

The celebration of acts of courage and sacrifice for the nation's good, as in Anzac Day services, and the fact that this history is a source of pride and inspiration, shows that we do see ourselves as part of the same national community, even if this sense might weaken over time.

It also accords with accepted legal and international norms which make a nation responsible for the actions of its elected governments. None of this implies the guilt of present generations for past wrongs, it simply admits that the nation, through its government, failed to live up to its principles.

The second claim rests on confusion between an excuse and a justification. We justify actions by values - if an act violates community values we condemn it as wrong. But it does not follow that those who acted deserve censure; they may have acted in ignorance or good faith. Such pleas may lessen or negate blame, but this
does not mean their actions were not wrongful; it does not mean rights were not violated, nor does it deny the suffering caused to victims.

The distinction is important in an age when fundamentalist thinking suggests it is enough to act in good faith, or from strong religious conviction, even if innocent people suffer.

In admitting the nation's policy was wrong, the apology re-affirms respect and concern for those harmed; it also re-affirms ideals of fairness and human dignity that are compromised whenever the pursuit of public goals ignores minority rights. By reminding the community of its aspirations and ideals, as well as its fallibility, it has both practical and symbolic value, arguably more so than any proposed changes to a constitutional preamble.

Max Atkinson is a former dean in the Law School at the University of Tasmania.

Source: The Age

Further information: stolen generations issues page - includes news index and external links

|| click to go to the top of this page